Saugy gave the key to beating EPO? - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-10-13, 20:47
mtb Dad mtb Dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 100
Default Saugy gave the key to beating EPO?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/laus...st-says-tygart

So is this evidence more of Saugy's corruption, or UCI's coercion (they were paying for the testing then i guess)? Endorsement from the Swiss cycling organization seems like faint praise.
  #2  
Old 01-10-13, 20:56
sniper sniper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,081
Default

Phat will tuck this one away by either staying silent or stressing it didn't happen under his watch.
  #3  
Old 01-10-13, 21:05
sniper sniper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,081
Default

but it seems the kind of circumstantial evidence that Kimmage will be able to exploit if he's going forward with his case against P&H. (Is he?)
  #4  
Old 01-10-13, 22:22
DirtyWorks's Avatar
DirtyWorks DirtyWorks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtb Dad View Post
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/laus...st-says-tygart

So is this evidence more of Saugy's corruption, or UCI's coercion (they were paying for the testing then i guess)? Endorsement from the Swiss cycling organization seems like faint praise.
Either the UCI or the event organizer pays for dope testing depending on the event and those arrangements tend to be secret. What tests are run is also secret. Saugy himself is a bit player. Really. A paying customer wants Saugy to attend a meeting? No problem.

The fact that the sports federation is telling the lab to explain to an athlete how to beat the EPO test should be Watergate-scale corruption suitable to end the UCI. But it won't because that's about average for the more visible IOC sports.

A little pet peeve of mine is this isn't really new. Anyone except the worst of the deniers figured out when "there was a meeting at the UCI" with Saugy and Wonderboy, that it was about how to beat the test. It's just that the right person is finally saying it. I'm glad it's getting a larger audience, but this is old material.
__________________
Wefunk Radio: funkify your life!
http://www.wefunkradio.com/radio/

Last edited by DirtyWorks; 01-10-13 at 22:25.
  #5  
Old 01-11-13, 00:04
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,878
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
The fact that the sports federation is telling the lab to explain to an athlete how to beat the EPO test should be Watergate-scale corruption suitable to end the UCI. But it won't because that's about average for the more visible IOC sports.

A little pet peeve of mine is this isn't really new. Anyone except the worst of the deniers figured out when "there was a meeting at the UCI" with Saugy and Wonderboy, that it was about how to beat the test. It's just that the right person is finally saying it. I'm glad it's getting a larger audience, but this is old material.
Hopefully UCIgate will bring needed change, wether it is Change Cycling Now or something like that. Wow. That is the first I heard the content of the meeting was about how to beat the test.
  #6  
Old 01-11-13, 00:27
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,027
Default

Keep in mind that after the charging letter came out, it was reported that Saugy said he would never testify that the TdS sample was positive. He was adamant that it was a borderline result, and that according to the standards of the time it could not be judged positive. This is consistent with Tygart’s saying Saugy said the sample “indicated” positive.

Also, while the “keys to the EPO test” quote is shocking, did Saugy actually say so in so many words, or did he just “nod his head”? A head movement is something someone could easily deny, or claim was misinterpreted. Saugy could also argue that all he did at the meeting was reassure LA that he would not have to worry about false positives, that he explained to him how the test distinguished natural from synthetic positives.

In any case, it’s unlikely that Saugy could have told LA anything that was not already in the public domain. There was some discussion of this on another thread here, and some were arguing that LA took information from this meeting to Ferrari, who used it to design a way to beat the test. I don’t buy that. By that time, 2002, the EPO test had already been published, and Ferrari would have been thoroughly familiar with it, knowing far more details about it than UCI could have communicated to a non-scientist like LA. Possibly Saugy could have been more specific about how the different isoforms are judged than was indicated in the published paper, but that information really wouldn't help someone beat the test. Ferrari's main insight was in realizing that an IV injection would be eliminated from the body fast enough to beat most tests, simply because there wouldn't be enough EPO present. I don't see how anything Saugy could have told LA/JB would have helped Ferrari come to this insight. Though this point was actually made in a paper published twenty years earlier, apparently no one at UCI or WADA was aware of it at that time, as they all later expressed surprise that Ferrari had come up with it.

So unless Saugy suddenly reverses his position, and confirms everything Tygart said or implied, I think much more than this statement would be needed to build a case against UCI. If there is still communication going on between LA and USADA (?), Tygart could have been sending a message to him: if you want your ban reduced, tell us exactly what happened at this meeting.

Last edited by Merckx index; 01-11-13 at 00:36.
  #7  
Old 01-11-13, 11:31
Benotti69's Avatar
Benotti69 Benotti69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Keep in mind that after the charging letter came out, it was reported that Saugy said he would never testify that the TdS sample was positive. He was adamant that it was a borderline result, and that according to the standards of the time it could not be judged positive. This is consistent with Tygart’s saying Saugy said the sample “indicated” positive.

Also, while the “keys to the EPO test” quote is shocking, did Saugy actually say so in so many words, or did he just “nod his head”? A head movement is something someone could easily deny, or claim was misinterpreted. Saugy could also argue that all he did at the meeting was reassure LA that he would not have to worry about false positives, that he explained to him how the test distinguished natural from synthetic positives.

In any case, it’s unlikely that Saugy could have told LA anything that was not already in the public domain. There was some discussion of this on another thread here, and some were arguing that LA took information from this meeting to Ferrari, who used it to design a way to beat the test. I don’t buy that. By that time, 2002, the EPO test had already been published, and Ferrari would have been thoroughly familiar with it, knowing far more details about it than UCI could have communicated to a non-scientist like LA. Possibly Saugy could have been more specific about how the different isoforms are judged than was indicated in the published paper, but that information really wouldn't help someone beat the test. Ferrari's main insight was in realizing that an IV injection would be eliminated from the body fast enough to beat most tests, simply because there wouldn't be enough EPO present. I don't see how anything Saugy could have told LA/JB would have helped Ferrari come to this insight. Though this point was actually made in a paper published twenty years earlier, apparently no one at UCI or WADA was aware of it at that time, as they all later expressed surprise that Ferrari had come up with it.

So unless Saugy suddenly reverses his position, and confirms everything Tygart said or implied, I think much more than this statement would be needed to build a case against UCI. If there is still communication going on between LA and USADA (?), Tygart could have been sending a message to him: if you want your ban reduced, tell us exactly what happened at this meeting.
I guess Tygart would not release this info without some kind of proof!

I doubt the Swiss Police investigation will get far as soon as they start to dig into UCI they find it leads to the cesspit of IOC where they will fond that they probably do not want to open that and expose Swizterland again as the white collar corrupt capital.
__________________
"ahaha, ever had the feeling you been cheated?" JL SF Jan'78
  #8  
Old 01-11-13, 11:35
SundayRider SundayRider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,067
Default

Fully agree Benotti.
  #9  
Old 01-11-13, 11:37
dolophonic's Avatar
dolophonic dolophonic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 584
Default

Merckx Index .. sounds about right..
  #10  
Old 01-11-13, 13:59
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Keep in mind that after the charging letter came out, it was reported that Saugy said he would never testify that the TdS sample was positive. He was adamant that it was a borderline result, and that according to the standards of the time it could not be judged positive. This is consistent with Tygart’s saying Saugy said the sample “indicated” positive.

Also, while the “keys to the EPO test” quote is shocking, did Saugy actually say so in so many words, or did he just “nod his head”? A head movement is something someone could easily deny, or claim was misinterpreted. Saugy could also argue that all he did at the meeting was reassure LA that he would not have to worry about false positives, that he explained to him how the test distinguished natural from synthetic positives.

In any case, it’s unlikely that Saugy could have told LA anything that was not already in the public domain. There was some discussion of this on another thread here, and some were arguing that LA took information from this meeting to Ferrari, who used it to design a way to beat the test. I don’t buy that. By that time, 2002, the EPO test had already been published, and Ferrari would have been thoroughly familiar with it, knowing far more details about it than UCI could have communicated to a non-scientist like LA. Possibly Saugy could have been more specific about how the different isoforms are judged than was indicated in the published paper, but that information really wouldn't help someone beat the test. Ferrari's main insight was in realizing that an IV injection would be eliminated from the body fast enough to beat most tests, simply because there wouldn't be enough EPO present. I don't see how anything Saugy could have told LA/JB would have helped Ferrari come to this insight. Though this point was actually made in a paper published twenty years earlier, apparently no one at UCI or WADA was aware of it at that time, as they all later expressed surprise that Ferrari had come up with it.

So unless Saugy suddenly reverses his position, and confirms everything Tygart said or implied, I think much more than this statement would be needed to build a case against UCI. If there is still communication going on between LA and USADA (?), Tygart could have been sending a message to him: if you want your ban reduced, tell us exactly what happened at this meeting.
Someone lying and he just changed his mind again.

Quote:
Saugy on Friday confirmed that the UCI had asked him to meet the pair but added: “In the context I remain persuaded that it was the thing to do. It was neither an error nor naivety as some people have written.”
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/...po-test_271004
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.